A Supreme Court Bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Atul S.
Chandurkar has asked the top court’s Registry to explain why a contempt petition related to the implementation of its May 2025 judgment on cadre issues in the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) was “struck off” the cause list, despite a specific judicial order directing that it be listed for hearing at 2 p.m. on September 29.
The proceedings pertain to the implementation of the Supreme Court’s May 23, 2025 judgment where it had asked the government to “progressively reduce the deputation of Indian Police Service (IPS) officers to senior posts” in the CAPFs.
Oka and Justice Bhuyan had ruled that the deputation posts of IPS officers in the Senior Administrative Grade (SAG) or up to the rank of Inspector General in CAPFs should be “progressively reduced over a period of time, say within an outer limit of two years. Justice Oka has since retired. An Organised Group A Service (OGAS) is a structured, cadre-based Group A civil service, with a defined hierarchy, promotion pathways, and cadre control, as distinct from isolated or general civil posts. Mr.
The court sought an explanation from Union Home Secretary Govind Mohan and the officer had submitted a detailed affidavit on September 23 in the court explaining the government’s position. On May 23, 2025, a Bench of Justice A.S. Mohan informed the Court that since May 2025, 46 IPS officers have been brought on deputation to the CAPFs up to the SAG level.
Justice Ujjal Bhuyan had orally observed that there was a “strong lobby” against them, and that the cadre officers of the CAPFs are completely stifled While hearing the contempt petition filed by retired CAPF officers on September 2. The court also ruled that Group A officers of CAPFs are “Organised Services” for “all purposes”, and asked for a time-bound review of cadre and service rules within six months.
It had specifically ordered that the case be listed again on September 29 at 2 p.m. and allowed the respondents to file corrected affidavits in the meantime. 32 in the cause list for September 29, but that it had subsequently been informed that the case had been struck off the list. The court recorded that the matter had been listed as Item No.
On September 22, the court had been unable to take up the matter due to paucity of time.
“Since it is a judicial order to get the case listed today at 02:00 PM, we direct listing of this case, along with the other connected matters, again tomorrow, i.e. on 30.09.2026, at 02:00 PM, with a note by the Registry, as to why the matter was struck off from the cause list despite there being a judicial order,” the court said in its order.
